Why are so many white people overdosing on fentanyl? alcohol ? Because people are in so much competition with so many other people . This is created by the “Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. “

yours truly, Chollie , Dolly Tuesday, April 7, 2026 "...Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers..." Competition within the Wage-Labor Class divides the Working Class _politically_; AND engenders worry and anxiety _at work, on the job_ , added to competition with supervisors as subordnates , making work, labour TOIL.<



TOIL CAUSES ALCHOLISM , SPOUSAL ABUSE , ROAD RAGE , etc RECEPTIVITY TO FENTYNAL FROM ACROSS THE BORDER <


. "The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." <


"Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007 <



The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007



http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2026/04/philosopher-bertrand-russell-concludes.html



Philosopher Bertrand Russell concludes that the "time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time"; logically related to Marshall Sahlins idea of greater leisure in the original affluence of Stone Age Society , 2.5 million years of it , hunting and gathering to affluence


And the Marxist principle that Freedom is freedom from Toil , Burdensome Labor ; LEISURE ! FUN ! <




https://www.uvm.edu/~jdericks/EE/Sahlins-Original_Affluent_Society.pdf<


Marshall Sahlins's theory of the "original affluent society" proposes that hunter-gatherer societies were affluent not through material wealth, but through having limited needs that were easily satisfied. He argued this "Zen road to affluence" meant these societies had abundant leisure time because their wants were small, contrasting with the endless consumerism of modern, capitalist societies.


Key aspects of the theory Definition of affluence: Sahlins redefined affluence as the satisfaction of wants, which can be achieved either by "producing much" or "desiring little".


The "Zen" approach: Hunter-gatherers, according to Sahlins, followed the "Zen" path by desiring little, making their material wants finite and few. Limited wants, abundant leisure: Because their needs were easily met through relatively low-effort work, hunter-gatherer societies had more leisure time than modern societies, which were often seen as struggling with scarcity despite their productivity.


Challenging a "struggle for survival": The theory challenged the common assumption that hunter-gatherer life was a constant, desperate struggle for survival.



! The rise of scarcity: Sahlins argued that the creation of new wants and the rise of commercial markets are what truly created scarcity and a culture of deprivation, not the inherent limitations of hunter-gatherer life.


Marshall Sahlins's "Original Affluent Society" is a provocative theory arguing that hunter-gatherer societies were, in fact, the original affluent societies. He presented this idea in a 1966 paper, which later became the most famous chapter of his 1972 book, Stone Age Economics. Sahlins's thesis directly challenged the long-held Western notion that ancient people lived in a constant, desperate struggle for survival. His central argument is based on a redefinition of affluence. Rather than measuring wealth by how much is produced (the "Galbraithean way"), Sahlins proposes that affluence can be achieved by desiring little and easily meeting those limited wants (the "Zen road to affluence"). A) What is Professor Brown’s argument that the Stone Age was more civilized relative to so-called Civilization ? How is Professor Marshall Sahlins “Original Affluent Society “ thesis part of Prof. Brown’s argument ? What are the other parts of Prof. Brown’s argument ? What is the definition of “civilized” ? How is the thesis of “Survival of the Nicest” part of Professor Brown’s argument ? http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2026/04/httpswww.html



FAMOUS PHILOSOPHER BETTRAND RUSSELL's ABOLITION OF THE PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC In his 1932 essay "In Praise of Idleness," philosopher Bertrand Russell argues that modern industrial societies are unnecessarily overworked and that a significant reduction in working hours would lead to greater human happiness, creativity, and social stability. His core argument is that the "morality of work" is an outdated slave-mentality that persists despite technological advancements that have made widespread leisure possible. * Harper's Magazine Here is an outline of Bertrand Russell's argument for laziness: 1. The Core Thesis: Too Much Work • Work is not a virtue: <




https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+an+outline+of+philosopher+bertrand+russell%27s+argument+for+laziness&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#lfId=ChxjMe <



The Protestant work ethic is a 16th-17th century theological concept—popularized by Max Weber—that views hard work, diligence, and frugality as a spiritual calling and a sign of salvation. Rooted in Calvinism, it emphasizes personal accountability, austerity, and accumulating wealth through labor to honor God, profoundly shaping modern capitalist, American cultural values of self-reliance and achievement. EBSCO EBSCO +3 Key Principles of the Protestant Work Ethic Vocation as a Calling: Work is not merely for survival; it is a divine duty and a way to serve God (often called "the calling"). Hard Work and Diligence: Idleness is viewed as sinful, while industrious, disciplined labor is virtuous. Frugality and Deferment of Gratification: Accumulation of wealth is permissible, but spending it on luxuries is not. Earnings should be reinvested. Self-Reliance and Individualism: The individual is directly accountable to God, promoting personal responsibility over reliance on others. Wikipedia Wikipedia +6 Historical Context and Influence Reformation Origins: Martin Luther and especially John Calvin taught that all types of work are sacred, rejecting the medieval idea that only monastic life was holy. Puritan Influence: Puritans carried this work ethic to North America, cementing it in the foundation of American culture and its economic system. Capitalism's Rise: Max Weber proposed that this ethic provided the necessary psychological motivation for the development of modern capitalism by encouraging investment over luxury spending. EBSCO EBSCO +3 Potential Benefits Economic Productivity: Promotes intense focus on productive labor, boosting efficiency and economic growth. Self-Reliance and Discipline: Encourages a self-reliant, disciplined, and purposeful life. Dignity of Labor: Elevates the status of common, everyday labor to a respectable spiritual activity. Wikipedia Wikipedia +4 Criticisms and Modern Context Inequality and Exploitation: Critics argue the ethic can be used to justify economic inequality, suggesting that the poor are responsible for their own hardships, while justifying the high wealth of others. Ignoring Structural Factors: It often overlooks systemic issues that prevent success, attributing poverty solely to lack of effort. Workaholism: The intense focus on work can lead to burnout, reducing life to mere "busyness" and eroding work-life balance. Decline in Value: In modern, secular societies, this ethic has faded, sometimes replaced by focus on leisure, consumption, or work-life balance. Wikipedia Wikipedia +4 Influence on American Culture The ethic established the "self-made man" ideal, emphasizing that success is a result of sheer effort rather than birthright. This created a culture of extreme diligence, a "live-to-work" mentality, and a societal valuation of punctuality and efficiency. However, critics suggest this has morphed into an unsustainable, high-stress culture. Wikipedia Wikipedia +3 Protestant work ethic - Wikipedia There was a time, in these United States, when a candidate for public office could qualify with the electorate only by fixing his birthplace in or near the "log... Wikipedia The Protestant Ethic and Western Civilization https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+protestant+work+ethic%C2%A0&client=safari&hs=uk0U&sca_esv=e926c4d3ba1e4b4b&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ANbL-n5EsOKkr9_hyxiZYVLFLgMcuhNgkg%3A1775756379276&ei=W-TXaZ3FELP-p84PlIna8Ao&biw=390&bih=663&oq=what+is+the+protestant+work+ethic%C2%A0&gs_lp=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&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#lfId=ChxjMe does marxism hold that leisure is freedom



+8 Yes, Marxism holds that leisure—understood as free time for personal development—is essential to human freedom. Marxists argue that "true freedom" begins beyond the "realm of necessity" (the time spent working to satisfy basic survival needs). Reddit



+3 Here is a breakdown of the Marxist perspective on leisure and freedom: Leisure as the "Realm of Freedom": In Capital, Vol. 3, Marx distinguishes between the "realm of necessity" (necessary labor) and the "realm of freedom". He believed that this realm of freedom could only "blossom forth" with the realm of necessity as its basis, meaning that a reduction in the working day is a prerequisite for freedom.



Time for Development: Marx considered free time to be "wealth itself," valuing it as time for the full development of the individual's artistic, scientific, and other capabilities.


Freedom Beyond Just "Rest": Marx distinguished true leisure (active self-development) from mere leisure time used for simple consumption or rest. True leisure is not simply idle time but is meant to be spent on higher activities that allow people to develop their potential as human beings.


Contrast with Capitalism: Marxism argues that under capitalism, leisure is "alienated" because it only serves to help the worker recover enough to return to work, or it is consumed by the pressures of a consumer society. In contrast, in a communist society, the aim is to maximize the time available for personal, creative, and social development.


"The Right to Be Lazy": Paul Lafargue, Karl Marx’s son-in-law, further developed this concept in his pamphlet The Right to Be Lazy, which argued against the capitalist work ethic and for the prioritization of leisure over endless production.


Cambridge University Press & Assessment Cambridge University Press & Assessment +8



The Goal: The ultimate Marxist goal is not to eliminate work, but to transform the labor process while reducing its required time, allowing people to spend the majority of their lives on activities that are "ends in themselves" rather than merely means for survival. <



http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2026/04/does-marxism-hold-that-leisure-is.html cb at 6:30 AM <




Karl Marx's Political Economic Riddle of Lazy Rascals doing all the LABOUR, but with nothing to show for it <



Big Daddy Karl :
br>

"We have seen how money is changed into capital; how through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalistic accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalistic mode of production, but its starting point.



"This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property. M. Thiers, e.g., had the assurance to repeat it with all the solemnity of a statesman to the French people, once so spirituel. But as soon as the question of property crops up, it becomes a sacred duty to proclaim the intellectual food of the infant as the one thing fit for all ages and for all stages of development. In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and “labour” were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic." <



https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm